stdcxx-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Martin Sebor <se...@roguewave.com>
Subject [PING] Re: missing build line for 22.locale.codecvt.out
Date Mon, 19 Nov 2007 05:33:44 GMT

Well, what do you think?

Martin


Martin Sebor wrote:
> 
> Travis Vitek wrote:
> [...]
>> So now we are pretty sure we know what is happening. All target names
>> that
>> end in .out will match to the pattern rule for generating .out files
>> first.
>> The question is how to fix it. Here are the options I see.
> 
> Thanks for the analysis!
> 
>> 
>>     1. rename the source file so the generated executable will not end in
>> .out
>>     2. change the .out rule to generate output files with some other
>> extension
>>     3. create an rule that is a better match than %.out so that rule is
>> selected for 22.locale.codecvt.out
>>     4. create a new makefile that includes the original GNUmakefile.tst,
>> but
>> defines the more explicit rule mentioned in 3
>> 
>> I dislike option 3 the most,
> 
> Between 2 and 3 I think I actually like 3 better. It seems general
> enough to eliminate all ill-effects of the overly generic %.out: %
> rule. And it's very simple (at least in my tests it was):
> 
> %.foo: %.foo.c
> 	touch $@
> 
>> and from the sound of it you won't want to use
>> option 1. So how does option 2 sound?
> 
> Another possibility might be to enable the %.out: % rule only for
> examples and disable it for tests and everything else work? We don't
> need to create .out files anywhere else, do we?
> 
> Martin
> 
> 

-- 
View this message in context: http://www.nabble.com/missing-build-line-for-22.locale.codecvt.out-tf4385887.html#a13828127
Sent from the stdcxx-dev mailing list archive at Nabble.com.


Mime
View raw message